Prenda Law, the ethically challenged law firm whose antics have faced growing scrutiny in recent months, just keeps digging its hole deeper. The firm is facing charges that it named a Minnesota man as the CEO of two litigious shell companies without the man's knowledge or permission. A California judge, Otis Wright, demanded more information about these allegations, and Prenda responded by seeking to boot him from the courtroom. Prenda claims Wright is too biased against copyright trolls to give the firm a fair hearing.

The identity theft allegations were brought to the judge's attention by Morgan Pietz, who represents one of the "John Doe" defendants Prenda is currently suing. Or at least Pietz allegedly represents a John Doe. In a Monday court filing first spotted by the "Fight Copyright Trolls" blog, Prenda suggested Pietz shouldn't be allowed to file a brief opposing the dismissal of Judge Wright because Pietz hasn't proved that he actually represents a John Doe in the case.

"Mr. Pietz could very well be intervening in all of these cases for his own ends, with no real client that he is defending," writes Prenda's Brett Gibbs. "Mr. Pietz should have to submit evidence that he is, in fact, representing the actual individual he claims to represent, and not merely inserting himself into cases on the pretense of representing that individual."

Gibbs continues: "Mr. Pietz has demonstrated repeated hostility toward Plaintiff and toward the undersigned, and, as such, would have sufficient motive to interfere with Plaintiff’s cases without the formality of actually having a client involved in the instant litigation."

Of course, as the defense attorney, it's Pietz's job to be "hostile" to the plaintiffs. And it's pretty rich for Prenda to demand that the defense attorney first prove that he is representing a real defendant. The firm, after all, is facing accusations that it is suing on behalf of imaginary plaintiffs.

Promoted Comments

I can't tell you all how happy any update from this story makes me. When the alert from my phone rings, I get like a kid before Christmas. And the comments are like a bonus. Without further ado...

Prenda: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on the first case.

Pietz: No. What's the defendant on the second case.

Prenda: I'm not asking you who's on second.

Pietz: Who's on first.

Prenda: One case at a time, counselor!

Pietz: Well, don't change the defendants around.

Prenda: I'm not changing nobody!

Pietz: Take it easy, buddy.

Prenda: I'm only asking you, who's the guy on first case?

Pietz: That's right.

Prenda: I don't know.

Pietz: He's the Judge, we're not talking about him.

Prenda: Now how did I get on the Judge?

Pietz: Well you mentioned his name.

Prenda: If I mentioned the Judge's name, then who's the Judge?

Pietz: No. Who's the defendant on first.

Prenda: What's on first?

Pietz: What's on second.

Prenda: I don't know.

Pietz: He's the Judge.

Prenda: There I go, back on the Judge again!

2 posts | registered Dec 11, 2012

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

80 Reader Comments

What's the point of Prenda going on like this? All they have to do to make this go away is tell the court who their CEO actually is, and if they had a legitimate CEO, I can't see what strategic advantage they give up in revealing that he exists.

It's not their CEO who's existence is under question, but that of the company which they claim to represent. There are several reasons why an off-shore shell company peddling porn might want to keep their owners and directors secret, most of them involving tax fraud.

The more the defense has to respond to stuff like this, the more it costs them, and the more likely (usually) the defense is to try to settle. At least, that's what their usual plan of attack is. What's happening here though is that people are on to their scheme. So they're going with the spaghetti offense, where you throw up as many motions as possible in the hopes that either you trip up the other side in a technicality, or they give up. Frankly, I don't see why they don't just withdraw the case. They are coming dangerously close to being severely smacked down, but they keep moving forward, apparently deluded into thinking that they can pull this out. What they're really doing is just putting themselves into their own noose. Judges tend not to appreciate having their time wasted by stuff like this.

Also, before the flood of "oh my God, all lawyers are scum" comments come out of the rafters, let me remind people that there is another lawyer, one whom most people here will probably agree with, on the other side. Is the guy trying to get Prenda Law to be honest also a scumbag?

For what? Nothing has been proven yet. Accusations and evidence are not the same thing.

Mind you, I think that Prenda Law is most likely guilty, and I think that they should face some serious consequences if the allegations are true. But that doesn't mean that just because we don't like the way they act that the law should take heed of that. It's just as irresponsible to ask that the court invalidate procedure by punishing these people without evidence as it would be if Prenda asked the court to preemptively assume all the John Does were guilty. That's not how the system works, and you should be thankful for that.

Also, before the flood of "oh my God, all lawyers are scum" comments come out of the rafters, let me remind people that there is another lawyer, one whom most people here will probably agree with, on the other side. Is the guy trying to get Prenda Law to be honest also a scumbag?

The court ordered Prenda Law to produce its owner so it can decide whether or not they did engage in identity theft, but Prenda Law has not complied with that order yet and it was a while ago. Still I'm not sure what they time requirements were.

Direct contempt is done in the presence of the judge, and can be sanctioned immediately. A person who fails to obey an order and is accused of indirect contempt, however, must receive notification of the charge, and an opportunity for a hearing of evidence on the matter. Furthermore, in most civil cases, it's not even a criminal charge. Even if they have violated the time frame given, it might not be worth the courts time to play out the farce right now.

Honestly, though, the charges levied against them have a serious criminal liability. The contempt ones might get them fined. The appropriate action here is to allow discovery into the matter by opposing counsel. If the Prenda attorneys mess with that, then they're tampering with a case and the stakes go up again.

In general though, no matter what court case pops up on Ars, there seems to be an odd trend of someone going "contempt!" (or "disbar him"!) without actually knowing what the heck the law has to say on these matters, so I have a general policy of questioning the person who puts the idea forward. Often, these cries are over-simplified solutions. My policy is to ask people to delve deeper.

"Also, before the flood of "oh my God, all lawyers are scum" comments come out of the rafters, let me remind people that there is another lawyer, one whom most people here will probably agree with, on the other side. Is the guy trying to get Prenda Law to be honest also a scumbag?"

Also, before the flood of "oh my God, all lawyers are scum" comments come out of the rafters, let me remind people that there is another lawyer, one whom most people here will probably agree with, on the other side. Is the guy trying to get Prenda Law to be honest also a scumbag?

Okay, you have a point. 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Which is just a slightly less ridiculous version of the original falsehood. It's still woefully and shamefully ignorant of the actual profession. It would be akin to me bringing up your comment with my friends and saying "see, geeks don't get law at all, man". Except that would be asinine in the extreme. Because most of my friends are lawyers AND geeks.

Taking the simplistic "lawyers r all evil durr hurr hurr" insults you more than it does them. I

But I sincerely hope you stick to your guns, and the next time you need a lawyer, you remind yourself how 99% of them are horrible people, and you navigate the legal system by yourself. Very few people, it seems, think that their lawyer is in the wrong when they do their jobs.

The more the defense has to respond to stuff like this, the more it costs them, and the more likely (usually) the defense is to try to settle. At least, that's what their usual plan of attack is. What's happening here though is that people are on to their scheme. So they're going with the spaghetti offense, where you throw up as many motions as possible in the hopes that either you trip up the other side in a technicality, or they give up. Frankly, I don't see why they don't just withdraw the case. They are coming dangerously close to being severely smacked down, but they keep moving forward, apparently deluded into thinking that they can pull this out. What they're really doing is just putting themselves into their own noose. Judges tend not to appreciate having their time wasted by stuff like this.

Yeah, I get that. I'm just perplexed because you'd think they'd also file a motion or at least make a statement including something along the lines of "The CEO is not a fictional person with a stolen identity." You know, something that implies that they think they could win the case on merits rather than attrition.

Only if the claimed client actually wants that representation. Would you trust a lawyer who falsely claimed to be representing you to represent you well? I would want the judge to force him to pay an attorney of my choice instead.

Well generally I would not want such a client. However in this case he seems to be doing a damn fine job, so I would let him keep representing me. As long as he doesn't send a bill.

Also, before the flood of "oh my God, all lawyers are scum" comments come out of the rafters, let me remind people that there is another lawyer, one whom most people here will probably agree with, on the other side. Is the guy trying to get Prenda Law to be honest also a scumbag?

Okay, you have a point. 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Which is just a slightly less ridiculous version of the original falsehood.

Also, before the flood of "oh my God, all lawyers are scum" comments come out of the rafters, let me remind people that there is another lawyer, one whom most people here will probably agree with, on the other side. Is the guy trying to get Prenda Law to be honest also a scumbag?

Okay, you have a point. 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Which is just a slightly less ridiculous version of the original falsehood.

I'm afraid you misunderstand what a No True Scotsman fallacy is, what my argument was, or both. I did not attempt to assume any thing about what a "true" lawyer is, nor did I attempt to beg the question by stating that unscrupulous lawyers are not "true" lawyers. EDIT: Or, it's possible I misunderstood why you posted that link. I'll leave my post intact, but if I misunderstood your implication, I apologize in advance.

I stated that implying that 99% of lawyers are scummy is a slightly less ridiculous version of the trope of "all lawyers are scummy". Which makes no implication as to whether or not the lawyers who are (or are not) scummy act can be excluded from the realm of what makes a lawyer. Scummy lawyers are lawyers. Non-scummy lawyers are lawyers. I've not excluded any contrapositives in order to negate their inclusion in a statement.

So all you've managed to do is misuse a fallacy that's commonly cited on the internet. I'm not sure where the confusion is, but that link is entirely unrelated to my assertion.

In short, there are plenty of scummy lawyers. I still count them as lawyers, just as I count the good ones. "Lawyer" is defined by what a person does, not how they do their job. But the idea that the majority of lawyers act like the ones portrayed in popular culture is so ridiculously asinine that it should be mocked by anyone who fancies themselves as possessing even a modicum of intelligence.

If I said "99% of computer geeks are socially-awkward, hypochondriac losers with poor love prospects, and they give the others a bad name" it would be just as ridiculous, just as unlikely, and just as devoid of actual thought as is any statement which condemns all lawyers, all jocks, all accountants, all secretaries, or any other large swath of people.

Yeah, I get that. I'm just perplexed because you'd think they'd also file a motion or at least make a statement including something along the lines of "The CEO is not a fictional person with a stolen identity." You know, something that implies that they think they could win the case on merits rather than attrition.

Well they don't want to do that YET. Remember, their goal is to stretch this out as long as possible. They're not going to answer that question about the CEO until they absolutely have to. For starters, if they do double-down on the claim that they really do have a CEO by the name listed, then they've rather clearly gone into breaking the law territory if they can't produce a person by that name. And I would think that even they would want to avoid doing that. So their only other option is to stall as long as humanly possible, hoping for a miracle, before they finally do have to go "whoops, we made an error when we wrote down who our CEO is. Our bad." Then they pray that the judge buys it without bringing down the sanction hammer.

Also, before the flood of "oh my God, all lawyers are scum" comments come out of the rafters, let me remind people that there is another lawyer, one whom most people here will probably agree with, on the other side. Is the guy trying to get Prenda Law to be honest also a scumbag?

Okay, you have a point. 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Which is just a slightly less ridiculous version of the original falsehood.

I'm afraid you misunderstand what a No True Scotsman fallacy is, what my argument was, or both. I did not attempt to assume any thing about what a "true" lawyer is, nor did I attempt to beg the question by stating that unscrupulous lawyers are not "true" lawyers. EDIT: Or, it's possible I misunderstood why you posted that link. I'll leave my post intact, but if I misunderstood your implication, I apologize in advance.

I meant that he was engaging in a classical example of the fallacy. I think my quoting was misleading; I meant to underscore what you said. Apologies!

I meant that he was engaging in a classical example of the fallacy. I think my quoting was misleading; I meant to underscore what you said. Apologies!

Nope, as I said in my edit, my apologies for jumping the gun. I don't like retro-active redacting, so I figured I'd leave the rest of the post up. Still, it's a wonderful example of how difficult it is to understand stuff on the internet without voice and stuff. And I'm always up for admitting my mistakes (of which I've made many), so let's enjoy a moment of quiet internet zen and let's shut me up on this issue and get back to the issue at hand:

These Prenda dickheads are being dickheads. As I said before, the proper response at this point, from the judge should be simply to order that discovery be allowed by the defendants, or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing be held to ascertain the validity of these accusations before the trial proper is allowed to proceed.

Both solutions move the case forward while putting Prenda on notice that any behavior to block evidence could mean jail time. A contempt of court issuance can't do this as easily. It'll also make the case go faster, I think. I hate to see taxpayer dollars wasted on bullshit legal shenanigans.

But I sincerely hope you stick to your guns, and the next time you need a lawyer, you remind yourself how 99% of them are horrible people, and you navigate the legal system by yourself. Very few people, it seems, think that their lawyer is in the wrong when they do their jobs.

I have done that, and thanks to what the legal system is, how it works, how it has evolved, etc...

The legal system is a fucking nightmare because it was built by lawyers, for lawyers, at every possible step.

For hundreds of years. It's turtles lawyers all the way down.

For anyone even remotely involved in legal professions, to ever tell the average peon "have fun with that" is insensitive and self serving in a very profoundly deep way. It's about on par with a pilot handing the stick on a 747 to a random passenger and saying "have fun with that". The chances to avoid disaster are similar, and the consequences are often dire.

It is also ironic, given the particular place you make this comment. The topic here is of lawyers extorting money from the general public, with no real evidence yet involved, because it's usually cheaper to just pay a random drive by legal extortion demand than even think of mounting a defense. And these cases are not the only venue, I hear patent lawyers are doing the same, albeit with somewhat less sleazy connections. So when you say "have fun with that", please be mindful who started this mess.

Please think about this, and don't take it for granted. Please, if you have the opportunity to affect change, please try not to stack the deck in your own favor, please try to use plain language, please try to streamline process, please try to make the legal system not the exclusive domain of career professionals. Or at least try to charge a fair price, because any way you slice it, you're enjoying a real monopoly, and the public all to often gets fucked by it.

I have done that, and thanks to what the legal system is, how it works, how it has evolved, etc...

The legal system is a fucking nightmare because it was built by lawyers, for lawyers, at every possible step.

For hundreds of years. It's turtles lawyers all the way down.

No, it's a fucking nightmare because it's a complex entity bogged down by rules that are largely designed to keep government branches separate and distinct (at least in the US). Pretending that lawyers write laws is a handy way of saying "I have no f'ing clue what I'm talking about". Governments build laws for the Government's purpose. Lawyers advocate for clients-- for whom sometimes the laws are beneficial and sometimes they are not.

The idea of a law being written "for lawyers" is about a dumb a comment on Law as I've seen. The very purpose of law is that it is based on an adversarial system-- two parties arguing against one another. How on earth would a law "favor lawyers"? Inherently, a law that helps one side of a case is going to hurt the opponents of it. Laws are written to serve CLIENTS, not lawyers. Whether that be the American people (in the best circumstance), the government, or, and this cannot be denied, corporate entities (in the worst case). "Lawyers" don't benefit from laws because lawyers are always on BOTH SIDES OF A CASE.

Again, this is common sense.

Quote:

For anyone even remotely involved in legal professions, to ever tell the average peon "have fun with that" is insensitive and self serving in a very profoundly deep way. It's about on par with a pilot handing the stick on a 747 to a random passenger and saying "have fun with that". The chances to avoid disaster are similar, and the consequences are often dire.

Do you also bandy about telling pilots that 99% of them are scumbags? No? Then the comparison isn't apt at all. You're the one who stated that 99% of lawyers are scum. YOU. If that's you're belief, then yes, I can fully tell you to have fun without them. I would NEVER recommend anyone get involved in a court case without a lawyer-- even if they are familiar with law, having a person advocating on your behalf who can see things you don't, who has done more comprehensive research than you is always a good thing.

But if you're going to honestly sit there and pretend that your statement is a reasonable interpretation of the character of millions of people you've never met, I have zero sympathy for you. Because it is your own inability to see past stupid stereotypes that is the underlying issue.

Quote:

It is also ironic, given the particular place you make this comment. The topic here is of lawyers extorting money from the general public, with no real evidence yet involved, because it's usually cheaper to just pay a random drive by legal extortion demand than even think of mounting a defense. And these cases are not the only venue, I hear patent lawyers are doing the same, albeit with somewhat less sleazy connections. So when you say "have fun with that", please be mindful who started this mess.

I am FAR more mindful of the reality of the people who "started this mess" than you. Who started it? A relatively small portion of people within a profession that spans hundreds if not thousands of specialties from contract negotiations to wills, testaments, property rights, tax reform, privacy rights, marriages, mergers, employee policies, liability forms, etc, etc, etc. You're proving my point. You're letting a tiny, tiny fragment of lawyers inform your worldview of a profession that has probably been involved in your life in more than you will ever know-- a healthy majority of which was never seen by you, and never will be, because it's not "news".

Worse than that, you're pretending that an even smaller subset-- those that act without morals-- are the whole of even that niche-- and THEN ascribing it to all lawyers. It is asinine in the extreme.

When you buy a home, when you lease a vehicle, when you sign a will, when you incoroporate a business, when you sign up for a new email account, when you agree to the iTunes terms of service, when you get hired and sign the forms-- all of those were done by lawyers, few of whom will ever make the news. You are ascribing the behavior of a tiny subset of lawyers-- trials attorneys to ALL lawyers, which is ignoring the vast swath of lawyers in the world.

Quote:

Please think about this, and don't take it for granted. Please, if you have the opportunity to affect change, please try not to stack the deck in your own favor, please try to use plain language, please try to streamline process, please try to make the legal system not the exclusive domain of career professionals.

That's like telling a doctor not to make the profession the exclusive domain of career professionals. Career professionals do it better because they spend years of their lives learning about it. It's complex by it's nature-- because the desire is to protect people from the government, and from each other. Would you want an untrained doctor without proper training working on you, even if the tools were "simple"? No, you'd want the people who dedicate their lives to it.

Quote:

Or at least try to charge a fair price, because any way you slice it, you're enjoying a real monopoly, and the public all to often gets fucked by it.

How is it a "monopoly"? There are hundreds of thousands of lawyers. You can't ascribe "monopoly" to a field of people who do that job. That's not what a monopoly is. It would be like saying "Janitors have a monopoly on cleaning" It's a completely ridiculous statement. There are also pro-bono lawyers, public defenders, and public attorneys for convictions...so I'm afraid the use of "monopoly" is about as bass-ackwards as possible. A monopoly means a single actor. There are TONS of actors, each competing with one another for jobs.

If you can't use the term correctly, please, do yourself a favor and stop using it.

Shoot, by signing up for an account on this website, you read the work of a lawyer. Do you judge that person by the same standards as the assclowns in this case? If you do, you are a fool. End of story. "Lawyers" encompass a wide variety of skill sets and specialties, and most of them are just doing a job, being subject-matter experts and protecting their clients.

If your approach is "99% of lawyers are scum", then that's YOUR hangup, and I do wish you the best of luck in attempting to look out for your own interests without someone there to help you. I'd advise you to not do that-- it's about as smart as telling the pilot how horrible 99% of the people that work in their field are as human beings and leaving yourself to land. But if you can't separate what some asshat lawyers do from the vast multitude of other people that DON'T act like that...well, more the fool are you.

Lawyers represent their client. Some do it in decidedly unscrupulous ways. And you know what? A lot of other lawyers hate them just as much as people like you. Which is why you pretending they're one in the same is so freaking insulting.

Which is just a slightly less ridiculous version of the original falsehood. It's still woefully and shamefully ignorant of the actual profession. It would be akin to me bringing up your comment with my friends and saying "see, geeks don't get law at all, man". Except that would be asinine in the extreme. Because most of my friends are lawyers AND geeks.

Taking the simplistic "lawyers r all evil durr hurr hurr" insults you more than it does them. I

But I sincerely hope you stick to your guns, and the next time you need a lawyer, you remind yourself how 99% of them are horrible people, and you navigate the legal system by yourself. Very few people, it seems, think that their lawyer is in the wrong when they do their jobs.

I think a wider application of sturgeon's law is probably the most appropriate thing here. >90% of lawyers are shitty people. That's because >90% of people are shitty, and lawyers are people, and no particularly strong filter exists to change that ratio. This or something similar is true for most every group of people. However, it's a greater concern within the legal profession because of the great amount of influence lawyers have, and the ability for even an incredible minority to cause severe problems for society.

Quote:

How is it a "monopoly"? There are hundreds of thousands of lawyers. You can't ascribe "monopoly" to a field of people who do that job. That's not what a monopoly is. It would be like saying "Janitors have a monopoly on cleaning" It's a completely ridiculous statement. There are also pro-bono lawyers, public defenders, and public attorneys for convictions...so I'm afraid the use of "monopoly" is about as bass-ackwards as possible. A monopoly means a single actor. There are TONS of actors, each competing with one another for jobs.

In a great number of jurisdictions, certain actions are limited to those who are part of the bar association. There are also a number of limitations on accepted institutions for being part of the bar. Even if I took the bar exam tomorrow and passed it with a perfect score, in most states I could not practice law without a degree from an accredited university. This means that an effective cartel exists at several levels, making the claims of monopoly not unfounded. This kind of control is a big part of why this shakedown is effective. The cost of getting a lawyer on retainer for even simple tasks is very expensive because only a lawyer can do it (although the client can do it themselves, but that requires them to have knowhow). If, on the other hand, a few Ars readers brushed up on the relevant laws, and could legally perform the relatively simple tasks needed for getting clients out of this farce for 20 bucks a head, then this wouldn't be worth the troll's time.

I think a wider application of sturgeon's law is probably the most appropriate thing here. >90% of lawyers are shitty people. That's because >90% of people are shitty, and lawyers are people, and no particularly strong filter exists to change that ratio. This or something similar is true for most every group of people. However, it's a greater concern within the legal profession because of the great amount of influence lawyers have, and the ability for even an incredible minority to cause severe problems for society.

I prefer a more equitable worldview that absolutism (humans are inherently good OR evil) is inherently over-simplistic. But the general idea that few people are largely benevolent? I can get behind that. However, the idea that lawyers are inherently "more important" is flawed for the same reason that exploder is wrong. The guy who writes contracts in Bumfuck, Idaho doesn't have more power than the mechanic in the same town.

It is an EXTREMELY SMALL SUBSET of people you're talking about. It doesn't apply to "lawyers". It applies to "some lawyers". And those are representing the views of their CLIENTS. Clients who have access to money and the means to get their will imposed. Now, does the unfettered access of people with knowledge of law and large sums of money screw up the system? Yep. But that is a separate discussion, one couched in the economics of politics, not "lawyers" as a class.

Once again, the problem with protracting this farcical viewpoint is that you're still discussing an extremely tiny niche and applying your opinion to the majority and claiming them all as the same. It's a shitty argument. It will always be a shitty argument. One might as well say "CEOs are the most powerful people in the country". Except, that doesn't apply to 99% of CEOs, who run small businesses. It applies to the niche, and absolutist statements like this are antithetical to rational discourse.

Quote:

In a great number of jurisdictions, certain actions are limited to those who are part of the bar association. There are also a number of limitations on accepted institutions for being part of the bar. Even if I took the bar exam tomorrow and passed it with a perfect score, in most states I could not practice law without a degree from an accredited university. This means that an effective cartel exists at several levels, making the claims of monopoly not unfounded. This kind of control is a big part of why this shakedown is effective. The cost of getting a lawyer on retainer for even simple tasks is very expensive because only a lawyer can do it (although the client can do it themselves, but that requires them to have knowhow). If, on the other hand, a few Ars readers brushed up on the relevant laws, and could legally perform the relatively simple tasks needed for getting clients out of this farce for 20 bucks a head, then this wouldn't be worth the troll's time.

This is, once again, a bastardization of a loaded word for the purposes of establishing an emotional, rather than rational, response. Monopoly exists when there is a sole provider of a given commodity. "Lawyers", whose job is ADVERSARIAL, who compete for jobs, cannot be said to be a single "provider". They compete with each other. Both to be employed by someone and again when they are employed, they compete with one another. The same thing for universities.

The only "monopoly" is the state, who has the right to decide who can practice law. We also give states monopoly power over police force. No one can simply name themselves a cop. The same is true for firefighters, doctors, military members, etc, etc. The American system is predicated upon the ability of different levels of government being able to execute their power (and responsibilities) effectively. That's their damn job. Calling lawyers a monopoly is an argumentative tactic I'd expect from a junior high debate team. They are not a monopoly. By definition, they cannot be. The service they provide-- legal counsel-- is available from EVERY OTHER LAWYER IN THAT FIELD. Attempting to muddy the water is simply irresponsible if done deliberately, and incredibly ignorant if you actually believe it.

Ensuring a minimum standard of expertise is actually a form of protection of the citizens AGAINST the government. By regulating the industry, they avoid having someone entirely untrained from representing a defendant who cannot afford their own attorney. If you remove that protection, you're saying that the state can place someone with no formal training against their own well-trained lawyers in a trial and call that "fair". The system, if anything, needs MORE regulation on who can represent others, not less. Protecting people from the will of the government is one of the central protections to democracy.

Should that regulation be in the form of a bar association and university...perhaps not. Advocating for more practical experience and more rigorous testing that does not require a vast investment in expensive universities could be a better system. But again, calling "lawyers", as a collective whole, a monopoly, is a misunderstanding of the word at best...and that's being very generous.

Once again, these arguments are loaded with more rhetoric than logic. They simply fail any prima facie inspection of their merits.

How did he find this John Doe to represent? If I remember case right all that have been accused are IPs and ISP couldn't/wouldn't give any data. Did he put ad in paper asking for people that downloaded porn to represent?They could be after his method of tracking him.

My god, ... In oposition to the supposition that there is something inheirantly diffecent in the character of lawyers we get a never ending stream of reductional logical vomit interspressed with chunky subclauses of boilerplate, painful self justification and partially digested pees... .. So ... Can we call this ironic?

Also, before the flood of "oh my God, all lawyers are scum" comments come out of the rafters, let me remind people that there is another lawyer, one whom most people here will probably agree with, on the other side. Is the guy trying to get Prenda Law to be honest also a scumbag?

Okay, you have a point. 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Which is just a slightly less ridiculous version of the original falsehood. It's still woefully and shamefully ignorant of the actual profession. It would be akin to me bringing up your comment with my friends and saying "see, geeks don't get law at all, man". Except that would be asinine in the extreme. Because most of my friends are lawyers AND geeks.

But "see, geeks don't get the law at all, man" is a generally accurate statement, even if your friends are the exception.

NO, I NEVER SAID THAT, NOR DID I IMPLY IT, NOT EVEN ONCE.Neither did I defend it in any way whatsoever, not to any degree. Please don't forget it.Go back and re read my post if you need to. I've actually had great dealings with some really exceptional human beings who call themselves lawyers, and judges, and others amongst the legal professions. I would say most are good people who also see the problems and have only honorable intentions. Meanwhile I think I've touched a nerve... and you need to calm down.

Operative Alex wrote:

... way of saying "I have no f'ing clue what I'm talking about" ...... is about a dumb a comment on Law as I've seen. ...

No need to start calling names here.

Posting Guidelines Rule #4 Ad hominem and personal attacks are not permitted. Again: criticize the ideas, not the people. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy describing the attempt to discredit an argument by merely attacking the credibility of the arguer.

You've gone way too far, have seriously misconstrued my statements, and seriously lost your cool. Most of what you said has little or nothing to do with what I wrote, or intended. You are obviously no idiot, and neither am I. I even agree with many of your ideas, although they have little to do with what I wrote.

Here's what I said, please note the underlines:

exploder wrote:

I have done that, and thanks to what the legal system is, how it works, how it has evolved, etc...

The legal system is a fucking nightmare because it was built by lawyers, for lawyers, at every possible step.

For hundreds of years. It's turtles lawyers all the way down.

Operative Alex wrote:

The idea of a law being written "for lawyers" is about a dumb a comment on Law as I've seen.

Then it's a good thing I never made that comment, because that would have been really dumb. You might not want to put words in my mouth, I may spit them back in your face.

My contention is that there is an inherently self serving, biased mechanism at play here, that has substantially influenced the resulting form of the legal systemin total, in a way that, amongst many possible criticisms, happens to strongly favor continued reliance on legal professionals at almost every possible turn, in a way and to a degree that is detrimental and/or dangerous to the non-legal-professional public at large. I contend this is an obvious general truth, which is similarly true for many or most professional realms and their respective territories, to significant degrees, and it is disingenuous if not suspicious to deny the point.

If you want to say the legal systemin total as we know it, is not mostly the work of those in the legal professions, many (even mostly) lawyers included, then I think you are in obvious denial. The legal system vastly far more than just the laws. But if you want to get technical, the basic mechanism of common law directly implies that much of our law, by way of legal precedent, arises because lawyers press arguments in court, seek and provide answers, and (other lawyers that we hire as) judges decide. Which means in a very real sense that lawyers actually do routinely write law, and that is the express design of a common law system.

Those in the medical professions work long and hard to empower the public at large with better information, better self practices and self reliance, and better access in every way possible. Obviously their aim is not the elimination of doctors or the many other medical professionals. Their point is that the medical system should be as straight forward, accessible, participatory and patient empowering as humanly possible, on principle, even if that reduces their professional profits. In other words, health should be as far from a nightmare as possible. I think they have been doing a really great job, their numerous and enormous efforts are making great improvements, and this is easily reflected in a public that is better informed, involved and empowered in matters of their health than ever before in history. And to the degree that they do abuse their medical authority against the interests of the public, and in their own profit interests, we revile them and call them a racket.

I'm glad you agree the legal system is (at least partially) a nightmare (no need to over generalize, it necessarily covers much hard ground that will always need dedicated pro's). I'm very grateful to the many dedicated legal professionals who ever strive to improve the legal system, and it is sad they get far too little recognition for their efforts. I will also say it's sad they have been less successful overall than in medicine, and that is a shame because the end consequences to real people are often no less dire. We common people are all too often too ignorant and/or too poor to defend ourselves, or even conduct many aspects of seemingly routine business, without need of expensive legal help. We are also often vulnerable because of our ignorance, in ways that are arguably lamentable, but are at least in part the fault of the legal system being too hard for most to traverse, often harder than may really be necessary. That this may often be by design, being in the hands of those in the legal profession, and who have strong self interest, should not be a controversial point to raise.

Operative Alex wrote:

Do you also bandy about telling pilots that 99% of them are scumbags?

And the pilot would be derelict in their duty to your life, and the doctor also to their sworn oath, if the mere calling of names would have them abandon their crucial posts of service. Few would even begin to think of abandoning their post, for any reason, until they are dead themselves. But it would surprise few to hear that many in the legal professions might feel less duty bound.

Operative Alex wrote:

I would NEVER recommend anyone get involved in a court case without a lawyer

I am honestly glad that you would not give advice we both know would be horrible. But given your repeatedly and strongly expressed lack of sympathy for anyone who would insult all lawyers, you've managed to sound like you might gladly stand idle and watch with some satisfaction, while someone pays a very dire price for such a transgression. I hope that you would not, that mercy and compassion would win the day, and your skill would rise to honest need in spite of the other's ignorance. Somehow, that tone speaks of a casual callousness about the true gravity of the matter, which I personally find unbecoming of those who would operate the mechanisms of justice in our society.

Operative Alex wrote:

No, it's a fucking nightmare because it's a complex entity bogged down by rules that are largely designed to keep government branches separate and distinct (at least in the US).

Actually, our legal systems were all birthed in Europe, long before the USA was born, and are all very deeply similar. As we have no "keeping separate" issue here in Canada, nor anywhere else in the commonwealth, I would say you're sounding more like a political hack than someone who understands law, and trying to shirk responsibility onto politics, as though that's a completely separate venue, which it most certainly is not.

Operative Alex wrote:

Pretending that lawyers write laws ...

Right, because they hire the law writing out to janitors, mechanics and bartenders. Maybe you missed the bit where I dropped the original "lawyers" (from that over-generalized "are all scum" BS) and changed to the more realistic "For anyone even remotely involved in legal professions".

From the outside of the legal world looking in, for most lay people, general public, it's really obvious that the world can be fairly easily and usefully divided into, professionally, Legal and not-legal people. And while there certainly are myriad ways to earn a living amongst the Legal side of that group, there is almost always a matter of specific legal education, certification and qualification, which most of us do not have, the most recognizable and prominent career name usually being "lawyer". We're not so much talking about low level secretaries, as they are mostly not making the influential decisions of interest here.

... Worse than that, you're pretending that an even smaller subset-- those that act without morals-- are the whole of even that niche-- and THEN ascribing it to all lawyers. It is asinine in the extreme ...

... You are ascribing the behavior of a tiny subset of lawyers-- trials attorneys to ALL lawyers ...

... Do you judge that person by the same standards as the assclowns in this case? If you do, you are a fool. ...

... If your approach is "99% of lawyers are scum", then that's YOUR hangup, ...

... But if you can't separate what some asshat lawyers do from the vast multitude of other people that DON'T act like that...well, more the fool are you. ...

Which is why you pretending they're one in the same is so freaking insulting.

Which I never did. Not once, not in any way. That was someone else.

What I did say was this:

exploder wrote:

... it's usually cheaper to just pay a random drive by legal extortion demand than even think of mounting a defense.

Which is an indisputably true fact, that is absolutely central to this entire subject and controversy.

The despicable few scumbags who do this are able to, because lawyers enjoy exclusive power and privilege.

To the very significant degree that legal professionals manage to influence the legal system in their own favor, line their own nests, etc.. they enjoy an very effective monopoly racket. A racket that frankly terrifies the rest of us, to the point that a lawyer's power is ripe for abuse, as we increasingly see demonstrated. The deck is so badly stacked in their favor that we dare not challenge it. And to the most of us, who do not have their exclusive credentials and privilege, it's easy to lump them together as an exclusive and collected interest, and mistakenly use the word monopoly; sorry, my bad.

With that great privilege and power comes great responsibility. The whole point of my original post was simply that it's insensitive to the very real power imbalance, and the responsibility that comes with it, to tell your average punter "have fun with that" in a legal situation, no matter how pig ignorant they are. Legal professionals ought to know better, ought to have the professionalism to take a little unwarranted abuse, and ought to have the fortitude to refute the embodied ignorance by good example.

Operative Alex wrote: We also give states monopoly power over police force. No one can simply name themselves a cop. The same is true for firefighters, doctors, military members, etc, etc.

No less than one can name oneself a practising lawyer, or whatever a barrister is called where you live.Whereas it’s comparatively easy to obtain a Ph.D. in many parts of the world (case in point). Now, if you mean a practising physician …

Just pulling your leg here, I just happen to find the 99% comment hilarious.

Still, most people will think lawyers are scum because they don’t understand how moral considerations don’t come into play in their line of work.Yes, even the worst mass murderer is entitled to the best (available/affordable) defence, because truth will arise from debate, and the accused is innocent until that truth is found in court. That’s clean, elegant and necessary. And hard to accept.Also, jurists sound hermetic to the general public, using words to mean not the stuff that the word means when you use it to mean stuff. Like, ‘legal person’, which is definitely not a person, and not necessarily legal. And they use _latin_ of all things to clarify: persona ficta. Or spout big words like ‘irrefragability’. I mean, beg your pardon? And then you understand just what it means, and _that_ rubs your common sense the wrong way.Looking like you’re controlling the world, and sounding like a secret society won’t bring you any love.

I do have a question, though: I understand that the U.S.A don’t have a ‘loser pays’ doctrine, which would probably be useless anyhow against an offshore shell entity.Is there any form of legal fees insurance, which would at least allow defendants to last through the proceeds instead of just going bankrupt?I understand this provides an incentive _against_ settling early, which is bad for the courts, but also against motion flurries tactics, which is good.

NO, I NEVER SAID THAT, NOR DID I IMPLY IT, NOT EVEN ONCE.Neither did I defend it in any way whatsoever, not to any degree. Please don't forget it.

My apologies. I'm swamped right now, so I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but I got you and DannyB confused with nested quotes, so I apologize for that. Be back to address the rest of your points sometime tonight.

NO, I NEVER SAID THAT, NOR DID I IMPLY IT, NOT EVEN ONCE.Neither did I defend it in any way whatsoever, not to any degree. Please don't forget it.

My apologies. I'm swamped right now, so I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but I got you and DannyB confused with nested quotes, so I apologize for that. Be back to address the rest of your points sometime tonight.

Hey, no problem mate, and thanks for responding in the mean time. I should also specifically say, I'm not trying for a war, I think we're both fairly reasonable and sane people, both with better insight into law than this "all lawyers are jerks" crap, which is a real waste of everyone's time. FWIW I really liked your original point too, about remembering the good guy lawyer on the other side of this case. And you can essentially count the judge in that camp too, as far as we can tell so far (judges go to law school just the same as lawyers no?). Cheers, and don't hesitate to sleep instead, my reply was not small.

Pretending that lawyers write laws is a handy way of saying "I have no f'ing clue what I'm talking about" ...The idea of a law being written "for lawyers" is about a dumb a comment on Law as I've seen. ...

No need to start calling names here.

Posting Guidelines Rule #4 Ad hominem and personal attacks are not permitted. Again: criticize the ideas, not the people. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy describing the attempt to discredit an argument by merely attacking the credibility of the arguer.

I've edited your comment above (the bolded sections above) to undo your selective quotation. Both of the quotes that you think are "calling names" are attacks on the ideas, not on the person. Ad hominem doesn't mean "you said it in a mean way". It means that rather than attack the idea, I attacked the person behind it. Both of those quotes are, directly, addressing the arguments put forth. One even has the word "idea" in it, for FSM's sake.

The idea that law is written for lawyers is, in my opinion, INCREDIBLY DUMB. If you believe that lawyers write the law, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's that simple.

Quote:

Here's what I said, please note the underlines:

exploder wrote:

I have done that, and thanks to what the legal system is, how it works, how it has evolved, etc...

The legal system is a fucking nightmare because it was built by lawyers, for lawyers, at every possible step.

For hundreds of years. It's turtles lawyers all the way down.

Operative Alex wrote:

The idea of a law being written "for lawyers" is about a dumb a comment on Law as I've seen.

Then it's a good thing I never made that comment, because that would have been really dumb. You might not want to put words in my mouth, I may spit them back in your face.

Oh, I'm sorry, you said it "the legal system is built" for lawyers, not "the law is written" for lawyers. Except...you know...writing laws is how the legal system is built.

Quote:

My contention is that there is an inherently self serving, biased mechanism at play here, that has substantially influenced the resulting form of the legal systemin total, in a way that, amongst many possible criticisms, happens to strongly favor continued reliance on legal professionals at almost every possible turn, in a way and to a degree that is detrimental and/or dangerous to the non-legal-professional public at large. I contend this is an obvious general truth, which is similarly true for many or most professional realms and their respective territories, to significant degrees, and it is disingenuous if not suspicious to deny the point.

So...if it's a "obvious general truth" that people who spend their lives dedicated to something are going to be at an advantage compared to untrained professionals...what, precisely, is your point? The legal system isn't "built for lawyers". It's built for the governments, and it just so happens that people who are educated on it tend to do better than those who don't. Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of saying "the auto industry is built for mechanics, because it has substantially influenced the resulting form of the repair systemin total." No, the auto industry builds for themselves, and because vehicles are a complex entity, it stands to reason that people that educate themselves on repair and do it for a living are going to have a comparative advantage in repair.

It's simply an illogical argument formed from two disparate ideas. 1) that complex industries favor professionals in those fields, which is true and 2) that the "building of the legal system" is designed for lawyers" which is completely, entirely, irrevocably a foolish idea. LAW IS BUILT FOR THE GOVERNMENT. We hope, of course, that the government does it for the citizens. This may or may not be the case. Lawyers are just the mechanics of law, tinkering away with what others have created.

Quote:

If you want to say the legal systemin total as we know it, is not mostly the work of those in the legal professions, many (even mostly) lawyers included, then I think you are in obvious denial.

Or, more likely, I have more familiarity with it than you, and am in a better position to know what I'm talking about.

Quote:

The legal system vastly far more than just the laws. But if you want to get technical, the basic mechanism of common law directly implies that much of our law, by way of legal precedent, arises because lawyers press arguments in court, seek and provide answers, and (other lawyers that we hire as) judges decide. Which means in a very real sense that lawyers actually do routinely write law, and that is the express design of a common law system.

My god. That's like saying if a mechanic is hired as a car designer, than the credit for the choices that individual makes as a car designer can be ascribed to "all mechanics". Do you not understand how patently silly that argument is? JUDGES decide law and set precedent, but judges are no longer lawyers. They don't practice law. They DECIDE law. Judges used to be lawyers. They simply aren't lawyers any more. They are elected or appointed individuals who now have an entirely different job. You might notice that they are different by the fact that they have different names, and do entirely different jobs.

Quote:

Those in the medical professions work long and hard to empower the public at large with better information, better self practices and self reliance, and better access in every way possible.

Really? All of them? They ALL do that? Amazing! Except, of course, that this is an entirely false contention, a complete fabrication. SOME doctors attempt to educate the public. Then again, so do SOME lawyers. Seriously, they write blogs and everything! Here! This is a great resource on reading the actual wording of law in the US, reading up on decisions of the Supreme Court, and finding tools that make it easier for the average person to understand law. Here is a free website that not only provides the full text of Canadian law, but puts every single case in Canada that cites that law at your fingertips.

Huh...I guess since some lawyers are actively working long and hard to empower the public at large with better information, better self practices and self reliance, and better access in every way, that means that all lawyers do it, huh?

Quote:

Obviously their aim is not the elimination of doctors or the many other medical professionals. Their point is that the medical system should be as straight forward, accessible, participatory and patient empowering as humanly possible, on principle, even if that reduces their professional profits.

Quote:

In other words, health should be as far from a nightmare as possible. I think they have been doing a really great job, their numerous and enormous efforts are making great improvements, and this is easily reflected in a public that is better informed, involved and empowered in matters of their health than ever before in history. And to the degree that they do abuse their medical authority against the interests of the public, and in their own profit interests, we revile them and call them a racket.

There are many, many resources available online, for free, for law as well. Does the actions of these people mean less than those in the medical community?

Quote:

I'm glad you agree the legal system is (at least partially) a nightmare (no need to over generalize, it necessarily covers much hard ground that will always need dedicated pro's). I'm very grateful to the many dedicated legal professionals who ever strive to improve the legal system, and it is sad they get far too little recognition for their efforts. I will also say it's sad they have been less successful overall than in medicine, and that is a shame because the end consequences to real people are often no less dire. We common people are all too often too ignorant and/or too poor to defend ourselves, or even conduct many aspects of seemingly routine business, without need of expensive legal help. We are also often vulnerable because of our ignorance, in ways that are arguably lamentable, but are at least in part the fault of the legal system being too hard for most to traverse, often harder than may really be necessary. That this may often be by design, being in the hands of those in the legal profession, and who have strong self interest, should not be a controversial point to raise.

Again, the legal system is not in the hands of "lawyers". It's in the hands of politicians. Laws are written by politicians. Judges can have some effect on law, but their power is at the mercy of the politicians. If a judge rules one way in a case, a new law can be written that invalidates that ruling. And judges can only rule on the interpretation of existing laws, not create new ones. Again, pretending otherwise is good way of saying "I don't know what I'm talking about." Judges often HATE the laws that are written, and the confusing nature of the beast. But they are often POWERLESS to change laws. Often, the people themselves have more power than a judge. A jury can (and has in the past) performed an act of jury nullification, refusing to convict someone, even if they were guilty under the law. A judge who did that would face severe reprimand. The Judicial branch of government is charged with INTERPRETING laws, not creating them. The major exception is Supreme Courts that can invalidate state or federal laws...but this is because they use the Constitution as a framework...and the Constitution isn't written by lawyers...it's written by politicians.

Quote:

And the pilot would be derelict in their duty to your life, and the doctor also to their sworn oath, if the mere calling of names would have them abandon their crucial posts of service. Few would even begin to think of abandoning their post, for any reason, until they are dead themselves. But it would surprise few to hear that many in the legal professions might feel less duty bound.

In the tragically painful world of your metaphor here, the only pilot who has a "duty" to you is the one you hired. Another pilot in another plane can tell you "hey, feel free to fly a plane yourself" if you're insulting his profession. He's got no "duty" to you simply by being "a pilot". A lawyer's duty is to their CLIENT.

Quote:

Operative Alex wrote:

I would NEVER recommend anyone get involved in a court case without a lawyer

I am honestly glad that you would not give advice we both know would be horrible. But given your repeatedly and strongly expressed lack of sympathy for anyone who would insult all lawyers, you've managed to sound like you might gladly stand idle and watch with some satisfaction, while someone pays a very dire price for such a transgression. I hope that you would not, that mercy and compassion would win the day, and your skill would rise to honest need in spite of the other's ignorance. Somehow, that tone speaks of a casual callousness about the true gravity of the matter, which I personally find unbecoming of those who would operate the mechanisms of justice in our society.

Except that there are laws about providing legal counsel, such that giving legal advice is itself an acceptance of responsibility and makes a person subject to penalty. A lawyer in one state cannot give out advice to someone from every other state. These laws often hamper lawyers (and are themselves a refutation of the idea that the legal system is built to help lawyers) in what they can do. Your position here is overly simplistic. Not placing myself at risk of penalty for someone who is sitting there saying I am scum isn't any more immoral than a pilot refusing to fly a chartered flight for a person who says all pilots are scum. Not to mention that this I apply the same concept of "big boy rules" to...pretty much every profession.

Quote:

Operative Alex wrote:

No, it's a fucking nightmare because it's a complex entity bogged down by rules that are largely designed to keep government branches separate and distinct (at least in the US).

Actually, our legal systems were all birthed in Europe, long before the USA was born, and are all very deeply similar. As we have no "keeping separate" issue here in Canada, nor anywhere else in the commonwealth, I would say you're sounding more like a political hack than someone who understands law, and trying to shirk responsibility onto politics, as though that's a completely separate venue, which it most certainly is not.

You're speaking of common law and the idea of precedent. This is, of course, about as descriptive of the entirety of "the legal system" as saying that the regulations on what footballs can be used in a match are a good summary of the rules of the game as a whole. Even in common law, precedent is set by the laws that are written. Even under English law, statuatory law supersedes common law. Furthermore, the American system of law is highly focused on the idea of jury trials. It's codified in our Constitution, and expanded upon in the 6th Amendment. The US puts both civil and criminal cases in the hands of everyday citizens extremely frequently. Judges rule on questions of law-- but again, they are restricted in their power by the LAWS THAT ARE WRITTEN. The laws they rule on are not of their creation, and those laws change not at the whim of the people who rule on law, but on a distinct and separate entity.

And yeah, in Canada, you DO have a separation of the judicial and parliamentary branches. The Constitution Act of 1867 divides powers first and foremost between the federal government and the provinces. The Quebec Act of 1774 established that common law must flow from a set of civil codes-- these codes are written not by the courts, but by the Parliament. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada is bound by the laws written by the Parliament-- a wholly separate branch of government-- but also has the power to abolish laws written that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as was set forth in 1982. I'd be happy to provide references to you if you'd like to verify my information.

That is the definition of separation of power. The only difference in Canada is that the Executive and Legislative branches are interwoven. The Judicial branch, the people who RULE on law, are wholly separate from the people who WRITE law. The Parliament can overrule any decision of the court by writing a new law, and the Court can do nothing to stop this...unless it violates the CCoRaF. This happens in the US quite frequently. A good example would be that the courts authorized investigation into the telecommunications companies when they were providing user data to the NSA. As a response, the US Government wrote a law that retroactively gave these companies immunity. That law is being challenged, but if it does not violate the ultimate law of the land, the Constitution, the original decision by the court will be invalidated.

Again, the judicial system is subservient to the laws of the land and influences only the interpretation of laws. The legislative branch can change the law and thus render this power moot.

Quote:

Right, because they hire the law writing out to janitors, mechanics and bartenders. Maybe you missed the bit where I dropped the original "lawyers" (from that over-generalized "are all scum" BS) and changed to the more realistic "For anyone even remotely involved in legal professions".

Is it your contention that 100% of people in the House of Representatives and Congress are lawyers? Or that 100% of the people in the Canadian Parliament are? THOSE are the people with the power to make law. So the people who decide what a law should say CAN be lawyers...or yeah, they could be former mechanics. Shoot, there are several members of Congress who are former doctors and engineers who decide the wording of the bills they write or vote for. Does that mean engineers write laws?

Quote:

From the outside of the legal world looking in, for most lay people, general public, it's really obvious that the world can be fairly easily and usefully divided into, professionally, Legal and not-legal people.

It can also be fairly easily divided up into janitors and not-janitors. That doesn't make it useful.

Quote:

And while there certainly are myriad ways to earn a living amongst the Legal side of that group, there is almost always a matter of specific legal education, certification and qualification, which most of us do not have, the most recognizable and prominent career name usually being "lawyer".

There is also similar processes for accountants, doctors, tax specialists, and IT professionals. What precisely do you think CCNA and MSCE certifications are all about? They're a matter of specific technical education, certification and qualification which most of us do not have, and their actions affect the way most people get on the internet. Then again, I suppose if we apply your logic to them, IT professionals are the ones responsible for decisions of the telecoms vis a vis throttling and bandwidth caps.

Quote:

We're not so much talking about low level secretaries, as they are mostly not making the influential decisions of interest here.

Oh, so we can admit that some people who work in law might not have power or any influence making decisions, but are just doing their jobs? Amazing! It's like I said that...

Operative Alex wrote:

...You're proving my point. You're letting a tiny, tiny fragment of lawyers inform your worldview of a profession ...... Worse than that, you're pretending that an even smaller subset-- those that act without morals-- are the whole of even that niche-- and THEN ascribing it to all lawyers. It is asinine in the extreme ...... You are ascribing the behavior of a tiny subset of lawyers-- trials attorneys to ALL lawyers ...

Oh...I guess I did say that. Several times. Do you honestly think that the guy working in a one-room office writing wills for a living has ANY POWER on the legal system as a whole? Do they have more power than a CEO that donates massive amounts of money to a campaign? No? Then again, we can point to a tiny subset of people in general who have power to affect change, and it's not a matter of profession, it's about access to decision-makers.

Quote:

The despicable few scumbags who do this are able to, because lawyers enjoy exclusive power and privilege.

Really? They're able to do it because they're abusing the system of laws that is written. A non-lawyer can also exploit the legal system for their personal benefit, FYI. Being a lawyer doesn't give one a magical decoder ring to sue people. It just means you've studied law and proven you know it to a certain degree of standard. You, as a private citizen could do the same. The fact that you would find it more difficult than a person who went to school for it is no more troubling than the fact that a person who is a trained doctor would be better at healing their own wound than you would be. Again, you're stating an obvious fact (people who study and practice something are better than those that don't) and acting as though it's something horrible, or the fact that a plumber is better at fixing their pipes than you, or a mechanic is better at fixing their own car than you.

If you want to fix your own car, you can! It's hard to learn, but once you learn to set the own timing on your pistons, you can really improve how well your engine performs. It takes time and dedication. If, right now, you wanted to learn to defend yourself in court-- you CAN! You can't go represent someone else, but you can sue someone to your heart's content if that's what you want. You can defend yourself against the claim of others. The fact that law is HARD is not something that warrants moral indignation. Engines are difficult to build, too. But if you want to spend your time doing it, you can teach yourself. Can improvement to law be made? Oh ho ho, yeah. No crap. There are lots of common-sense improvements that can be made. But the system will NEVER, EVER be able to accomodate the idea that an untrained person will have the same skill as a trained one, anymore so than Ford will make an engine that's just as easy for an untrained person to repair as a trained one. Complex systems favor trained people. This isn't rocket science. Which, incidentally, is also a field that favors professionals.

I mean, is it really fair that rockets are so complex that only people who study for a really long time can build them successfully? Shouldn't me make rocket science more accessible so that I can build one in my backyard?

Quote:

To the very significant degree that legal professionals manage to influence the legal system in their own favor, line their own nests, etc.. they enjoy an very effective monopoly racket. A racket that frankly terrifies the rest of us, to the point that a lawyer's power is ripe for abuse, as we increasingly see demonstrated.

Yeah, people making money from a skill they've learned. and a subset of those people using their knowledge for evil. How unprecedented. I bet that describes no other profession in the world, ever.

Quote:

The deck is so badly stacked in their favor that we dare not challenge it.

Why not? A lawyer's unique "power" is couched only in their knowledge and ability to argue persuasively. It's a skillset, same as any other. You want to challenge a big, fancy lawyer? READ BOOKS ON LAW. Use the fact that court decisions are PUBLIC PROPERTY to do research on a topic. You don't have to be a lawyer to learn what they learn. Shoot, you're in CANADA. Every Federal law is published in the Canada Gazette. Here is the link to your federal laws. I already pointed you above to this site, which links you to every Canadian case that cites a law. Read them. Learn them. Understand them. Being a lawyer isn't special. It's just about knowing law. Want to beat a lawyer? KNOW THE LAW BETTER THAN THEM. I can't speak for Canadian lawyers, but there are plenty of dumb lawyers in America. Beating them isn't a matter of being a lawyer, it's a matter of being able to assess data better.

If what you are saying is that law is DIFFICULT and TIME CONSUMING...then I'm afraid that sort of invalidates your point about lawyers being paid too much.

Quote:

And to the most of us, who do not have their exclusive credentials and privilege, it's easy to lump them together as an exclusive and collected interest, and mistakenly use the word monopoly; sorry, my bad.

Well, I'm glad we can agree that it's not a monopoly.

Quote:

Well,

With that great privilege and power comes great responsibility. The whole point of my original post was simply that it's insensitive to the very real power imbalance, and the responsibility that comes with it, to tell your average punter "have fun with that" in a legal situation, no matter how pig ignorant they are. Legal professionals ought to know better, ought to have the professionalism to take a little unwarranted abuse, and ought to have the fortitude to refute the embodied ignorance by good example.

My viewpoint isn't restricted to lawyers. It's a general application of the idea that ignorance of a skill should be met with either a desire to learn that skill yourself, or an acceptance of reliance on those that did. Do you think mechanics charge too much? Learn to do it yourself, then! Think computer repair people are liars who do unnecessary work to jack up prices? Well, shoot, take the time and learn about computers! Think all medicine is the work of the devil? Then don't use it. I will tell you the same thing I tell someone who refuses help from a lawyer-- "best of luck". I mean it sincerely. I hope the best for people like that, but if your decision to not put faith in the experts doesn't work out, I don't blame the experts. If DannyG thinks all lawyers are scum, then I wish them well in living a life without them. I think it's a bad decision, but I ascribe blame where it is due, and in that case it would not be the lawyer's fault that DannyG chose to represent themselves.

Maybe you call that callous. I call it being an adult, and accepting responsibility for one's own life. Being a lawyer is just the professional application of a specific, in-demand skill set gleaned from study of related information and practice. That it is difficult to master is not a condemnation of it. I stopped paying people to change my oil or do basic maintenance on my vehicle and started doing it myself.

To me, that's a hell of a lot better solution than saying "99% of mechanics are scum".

A media mogul wants copyright extended and penalties hightened. He hires a group of lawyers to write a draft law, and pressures the politicians he has provided financial support to to pass it. A better, more knowledgable lawyer writes a different draft law. The politicians vote for the one the media mogul wrote, and previous court rulings are rendered null and void.

The law was written by a lawyer. But it is not the fact that a lawyer was involved that created the law and changed the system. Knowledge of law was entirely unrelated to what happened, and the objectively "better" lawyer lost. Because law is not based on the skill one has in law. It is written by the government. If that draft law had been written by the media mogul himself, it still would be more likely to pass, because power does not flow from "being a lawyer". Law flows from power. That's why the argument falls flat.

Now, another addendum: I am a jerk. I am opinionated and I loathe poor logic. I do a terrible job of explaining why logic is poor without being condescending. When debating matters of logic, I am tenacious and I expect people to keep up. This is, in part, because I respect the average person here to be of a caliber that should be able to think through these things. One of my few redeeming qualities is that when I am wrong, I tend to admit it quickly. Another is that I try to edit out any direct insults ("you are dumb" vs "that idea is dumb'). If I fail to edit them out, I will apologize about them. While I am at the best of times contentious, I try to avoid insulting people. The ideas that people hold...not so much.

If I still offend you, I will apologize in advance. But for what it's worth, I'm much less derogatory to people whom I feel aren't capable of understanding. That may not be much of a balm for the way I behave, but I do want people to recognize that for everything else, I respect the intelligence of the people here enough that I do take umbrage with poor logic presented here.

I said: "Those in the medical professions work long and hard to empower the public ..."

You reply: "Really? All of them? They ALL do that? ..."

You're quite correct, and I should have put "Many people in the medical ..." instead of "Those in". My bad. I'm obviously not a perfect technical writer, I'm able to make ambiguous and poorly worded statements, and my comments in these forums would apparently be a poor choice to employ as critical code in life critical systems, or to use unedited as law.

But your reaction is actually dishonest, mean spirited, and counter productive. You apparently assume that I'm a complete fucking idiot, and proceed to supply obviously absurd interpretations, at what feels to me like every possible opportunity, which you then proceed to argue and berate me for.

Please notice, in that case I never said ALL, YOU said it, YOUR words, and YOU pursued it.

And here: "Is it your contention that 100% of people in the House of Representatives and Congress are lawyers?"

The answer to that is "obviously not", and only a dishonest debater would bother to pursue such a line. You practically manage to create straw men, you go so far. I find it mostly a waste of my time to even bother following many of your arguments, although they are littered with copious detailed facts. So thanks for the effort, but you can stuff the delivery and much of the content.

I have no further desire to converse with you, because in my opinion, you frequently discuss and argue in bad faith. I could spend hours going back and forth in walls of text, and it would be mostly futile, unproductive, and unpleasant. It's actually bizarre to me, that you spend such large effort, but are so stingy of spirit that the effort is largely wasted. I doubt you can see it, I guess you'll simply be glad that one less ignorant idiot is talking to you. Now you can win the forum. Congratulations.

Instead I think I'll discuss with people who choose to engage others in the spirit of / with the basic assumption of reciprocal good faith. I am quite willing to find out I'm wrong, and learn, I well agree with you on that. I find that people can effectively cooperate in discussion, and actually get somewhere worth the effort. "You are wrong and stupid and I am not" is seldom my goal.

Cheers. Oh, and your style of discussion is the perfect way of saying "I like acting like a real asshole."

My response is simple: I'm not responsible for the wording or implications of your argument. If your argument implies that "medical professionals" do something good that "lawyers" don't, it's a poor argument. As I stated, some medical professionals are wildly helpful. So, too, are some legal professionals. Why then, is your argument centered around the fact that we should take the best of the medical profession as the norm, and the worse of the legal profession as the norm? It's a biased, skewed stance that cannot stand a rational review. It is inherently flawed. Even if I presumed that you were talking about some people (which is not what you said), it's still not a rational argument, because you select the best of the group on one side and the worst of the group on the other.

At absolute best, your contention reads "more people in the medical field give out information freely". Really? Do you have facts to back that up? No! Such data would be impossible to find. So what you have is an impression, a belief that is unverifiable, and sets the discussion back by being entirely a supposition of yours. It's a BIAS. You believe this without any data to support it. How, then, is it productive to discuss it, or address it as anything other than ridiculous?

I'll skip the full explanation of why your impression of elected officials being lawyers is similarly flawed to save time, but suffice it to say, there is a reason I mocked the argument.

Perhaps I would catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar. I make no contention as to being the nicest man alive. But I spent an hour researching the history of Canadian law before I opened my mouth on the subject. I took the time to educate myself before attempting to argue with you. I respect you enough to have my own facts straight before I tell you that you are wrong. I may not be "nice", but I am honest and rigorous. That may be little salve to you at this point, I admit. I do not wish to insult "you", but rather your ideas, and pressure you to think critically about things before arguing them. And I admit, mocking an idea is often more effective to the "audience" in a debate, even if it is less effective with a 1-on-1 discussion. I write as though I'm in a debate, and there are other people who will read it.

If you'd like me to discuss this with you, I would be happy to. I'd only ask that you pose one question to your ideas: Is this verifiable, or is it just a bias I can't test?

Edit: Also, I've neglected to say it twice now, but I really wanted to get out how much I respect you simply saying you were wrong on the issue of "monopoly". Being able to admit you were wrong, publicly, especially to a person as..."direct" as myself...that's hard. And it shows a very strong strength of character to be able to do it. Apart from everything else, I want you to know I truly, deeply respect that ability, and the person behind it.

My response is simple: I'm not responsible for the wording or implications of your argument. If your argument implies that "medical professionals" do something good that "lawyers" don't, it's a poor argument. As I stated, some medical professionals are wildly helpful. So, too, are some legal professionals. Why then, is your argument centered around the fact that we should take the best of the medical profession as the norm, and the worse of the legal profession as the norm? It's a biased, skewed stance that cannot stand a rational review. It is inherently flawed. Even if I presumed that you were talking about some people (which is not what you said), it's still not a rational argument, because you select the best of the group on one side and the worst of the group on the other.

Usually when people need lawyers they are facing court case where they are faced with a lawyer trying to screw them over.

But when you go to a doctors office they wont be faced with 2 doctors where one tries to make them better and the other one tries to make them feel worse. So by logic, even if the ethics of the profeccionals were the same, logic states without a bias, the doctors are more helpful to people.

My response is simple: I'm not responsible for the wording or implications of your argument. If your argument implies that "medical professionals" do something good that "lawyers" don't, it's a poor argument. As I stated, some medical professionals are wildly helpful. So, too, are some legal professionals. Why then, is your argument centered around the fact that we should take the best of the medical profession as the norm, and the worse of the legal profession as the norm? It's a biased, skewed stance that cannot stand a rational review. It is inherently flawed. Even if I presumed that you were talking about some people (which is not what you said), it's still not a rational argument, because you select the best of the group on one side and the worst of the group on the other.

Usually when people need lawyers they are facing court case where they are faced with a lawyer trying to screw them over.

But when you go to a doctors office they wont be faced with 2 doctors where one tries to make them better and the other one tries to make them feel worse. So by logic, even if the ethics of the profeccionals were the same, logic states without a bias, the doctors are more helpful to people.

This is a false comparison. Medicine just plain isn't adversarial. Law is, pretty much by its very nature. Either it's an alleged criminal being tried by the state, or it's two people facing off against each other in a dispute that they can't settle amicably, even before you get the lawyers involved. It's the job that's contentious, not the people doing the job.

Every* lawyer is helpful to the people they represent. The people they oppose are naturally going to view him as harmful. That's the nature of conflict.

*Okay, there are some lawyers who are a waste of space, but they're the exception, not the rule.